Abstract
At the turn of 1960s and 1970s, Stanisław Lem devoted some of his non-fiction writing to a discussion and considerations of semiotics. Most of them were expressions of a critical approach mainly directed against structuralism. However, Lem also formulated some positive statements although they were not developed systematically. The article offers an analysis of Lem’s semiotic ideas from the perspective of semiotic functionalism of Jerzy Pelc, mainly considering its two main components: contextualism and typological approach. Special attention is paid to the latter because both Pelc and Lem proposed some original solutions in this respect. What is meant here is the multidimensional typology of symbolic uses of signs developed by Pelc and Lem’s multidimensional typology of the situations of the reception of texts. Although they are independent form each other, these proposals show some convergence both in their ways of construction and roles they are supposed to perform. Henceforth, one can say that Lem was a crypto-functionalist.
References
Astle, Richard. 1975. Lem’s misreading of Todorov. Science Fiction Studies 2(2). 167–169.Search in Google Scholar
Barnouw, Dagmar. 1979. Science fiction as a model for probabilistic worlds: Stanislaw Lem’s fantastic empiricism. Science Fiction Studies 6(2). 153–163.Search in Google Scholar
Brooke-Rose, Christine. 1976. Historical genres/theoretical genres: A discussion of Todorov on the fantastic. New Literary History 8(1). 145–158.10.2307/468618Search in Google Scholar
Ciecierski, Tadeusz. 2021. Indexicality, meaning, use. Semiotica 238(1/4). 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0056.Search in Google Scholar
Ciecierski, Tadeusz & Paweł Grabarczyk. 2020. An introduction: The architecture of context and context-sensitivity. In Tadeusz Ciecierski & Paweł Grabarczyk (eds.), The architecture of context and context-sensitivity: Perspectives from philosophy, linguistics and logic, 1–13. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.10.1007/978-3-030-34485-6_1Search in Google Scholar
Dąbska, Izydora. 2015. Symbol. Studia Semiotyczne – English Supplement 8–12. 248–257.Search in Google Scholar
Geier, Manfred. 1992. Stanislaw Lem’s fantastic ocean: Toward a semantic interpretation of “Solaris”. Science Fiction Studies 19(2). 192–218.Search in Google Scholar
Geier, Manfred. 1993. “Eden”: Elemente einer “außerirdischen” Semiologie. Quarber Merkur 31(2). 15–33.Search in Google Scholar
Głaz, Adam. 2014. Rorschach, we have a problem! The linguistics of first contact in Watts’s “Blindsight” and Lem’s “His master’s voice”. Science Fiction Studies 41(2). 364–391.10.5621/sciefictstud.41.2.0364Search in Google Scholar
Głowiński, Michał. 1979. On concretization. In John Odmark (ed.), Problems of literary theory (Language, literature, and meaning 1), 325–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/llsee.1.11gloSearch in Google Scholar
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2006. (Un)masking the agent: Stanislaw Lem’s “The mask”. In Swirski Peter (ed.), The art and science of Stanislaw Lem, 22–46. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.10.1515/9780773575073-003Search in Google Scholar
Kmita, Jerzy & Włodzimierz Ławniczak. 2015. Sign – symbol – allegory. Studia Semiotyczne – English Supplement 1. 61–94.Search in Google Scholar
Kuße, Holger. 2008. Phantastische Objekte. Stanisław Lems Beitrag zur Semantik. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 53(1). 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1524/slaw.2008.0004.Search in Google Scholar
Langer, Susanne K. 1942. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1972. Wyznania antysemioty [Confessions of an anti-semiote]. Teksty 1(1). 62–79.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1973. On structural analysis of science fiction. Science Fiction Studies 1(1). 26–33.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1974. Todorov’s fantastic theory of literature. Science Fiction Studies 1(4). 227–237.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1975a. Filozofia przypadku: Literatura w świetle empirii [Philosophy of chance: Literature in the light of empiricism], vol. 1. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1975b. Filozofia przypadku. Literatura w świetle empirii [Philosophy of chance. Literature in the light of empiricism], vol. 2. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1975c. In response. Science Fiction Studies 2(2). 169–170.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1981a. Über Inkonsequenzen in der Literatur. In Essays, 35–59. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1981b. Bekenntnisse eines Antisemioten. In Essays, 60–78. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1981c. Sade und die Spieltheorie. In Essays, 79–117. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1984. Mathematische Kodierung auf lebendem Trägermaterial. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 6(3). 253–256.Search in Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1989. Philosophie des Zufalls. Zu einer empirischen Theorie der Literatur. Band 2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1981. Prolegomena to a definition of the concept of sign. In Annemarie Lange-Seidl (ed.), Zeichenkonstitution: Akten des 2. Semiotischen Kolloquiums Regensburg 1978, 45–52. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110903966-007Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1988. A plea for semiotics. In Michael Herzfeld & Lucio Melazzo (eds.), Semiotic theory and practice: Proceedings of the third international congress of the IASS, Palermo 1984, 855–872. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110868883-088Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1992. The methodological status of semiotics: Signs, semiosis, interpretation and the limits of semiotics. In Michel Balat, Janice Deledalle-Rhodes & Gérard Deledalle (eds.), Signs of humanity/L’homme et ses signes: Proceedings of the fourth international congress of the IASS/Actes du IVe Congrès Mondial de ’AIS, Barcelona/Perpignan 1989, 23–34. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1993. Semiosis, cognition, interpretation. In René J. Jorna, Barend van Heusden & Roland Posner (eds.), Signs, search, and communication: Semiotic aspects of artificial intelligence, 25–38. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871579.25Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1996. “Symptom” and “symbol” in language. In Marcelo Dascal, Dietfried Gerhardus, Kuno Lorenz & Georg Meggle (eds.), Sprachphilosophie/Philosophy of language/La philosophie du langage. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössicher Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary Research/Manuel international des rechersches contemporaines, 1292–1313. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110139914.2.5.1292Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 2000. Semiosis and semiosics vs. semiotics. Semiotica 128(3/4). 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2000.128.3-4.425.Search in Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1934. Symbolism. In Encyclopedia of the social sciences, vol. 14, 492–495. New York: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert. 1975. Lem’s fantastic attack on Todorov. Science Fiction Studies 2(2). 166–167.Search in Google Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1973. The fantastic: A structural approach to a literary genre. Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve University.Search in Google Scholar
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor. 2015. The symbol. Art in Translation 7(4). 417–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/17561310.2015.1107314.Search in Google Scholar
Wallis, Mieczysław. 2015. Remarks on symbols. Studia Semiotyczne – English Supplement 7. 4–14.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
